Project Number 288094

eCOMPASS
eCO-friendly urban Multi-modal route PlAnning Services for mobile uSers
STREP
Funded by EC, INFSO-G4(ICT for Transport) under FP7
eCOMPASS TR 010
A Survey on Algorithmic Approaches for
Solving Tourist Trip Design Problems
Damianos Gavalas, Charalampos Konstantopoulos, Konstantinos Mastakas,
Grammati Pantziou, Yiannis Tasoulas
October 2012
Project Number 288094
eCOMPASS
eCO-friendly urban Multi-modal route PlAnning Services for mobile uSers
STREP
Funded by EC, INFSO-G4(ICT for Transport) under FP7
eCOMPASS TR 010
A Survey on Algorithmic Approaches for
Solving Tourist Trip Design Problems
Damianos Gavalas, Charalampos Konstantopoulos, Konstantinos Mastakas,
Grammati Pantziou, Yiannis Tasoulas
October 2012
A Survey on Algorithmic Approaches for Solving Tourist Trip
Design Problems
Damianos Gavalas
1
, Charalambos Konstantopoulos
2
, Konstantinos Mastakas
3
,
Grammati Pantziou
4
, and Yiannis Tasoulas
2
1
Department of Cultural Technology and Communication, University of the Aegean, Mytilene,
Greece, email: dgavalas@aegean.gr
2
Department of Informatics, University of Piraeus, Piraeus, Greece, email:
{konstant,jtas}@unipi.gr
3
Department of Mathematics, University of Athens, Athens, Greece, email: kmast@math.uoa.gr
4
Department of Informatics, Technological Educational Institution of Athens, Athens, Greece,
email: pantziou@teiath.gr
Abstract
The tourist trip design problem (TTDP) refers to a route-planning problem for
tourists interested in visiting multiple points of interest (POIs). TTDP solvers de-
rive daily tourist tours i.e., ordered visits to POIs, which respect tourist constraints
and POIs attributes. The main objective of the problem discussed is to select POIs
that match tourist preferences, thereby maximizing tourist satisfaction, while taking
into account a multitude of parameters and constraints (e.g., distances among POIs,
visiting time required for each POI, POIs visiting days/hours, entrance fees, weather
conditions) and respecting the time available for sightseeing in daily basis. The aim of
this work is to survey models, algorithmic approaches and methodologies concerning
tourist trip design problems. Recent approaches are examined, focusing on problem
models that best capture a multitude of realistic POIs attrbutes and user constraints;
further, several interesting TTDP variants are investigated. Open issues and promising
prospects in tourist trip planning research are also discussed.
1 Introduction
Tourists that visit a destination for one or several days, are facing the problem to decide
which points of interest (POIs) would be more interesting to visit and to determine a route
for each trip day, i.e., which POIs to visit as well as visit order among them. This is a
challenging quest that involves a number of constraints such as the visiting time required
for each POI, the POIs visiting days/hours, the travelling distance among POIs, the time
available for sightseeing in daily basis and the degree of satisfaction (termed prot)
1
associated with the visit to each POI (based on personal prole and peferences). A number
of dierent problems may be dened by considering dierent parameters and constraints
of the above general problem, termed as the tourist trip design problem (TTDP) [114].
Mobile tourist guides may be used as tools to derive solutions to TTDP [36], [68], [67],
[80]. Based on a list of personal interests and preferences, up-to-date information for the
sight and information about the visit (e.g. date of arrival and departure, accommodation
address, etc), a mobile guide can suggest near-optimal and feasible routes that include
visits to a series of sights, and to recommend the order of each sights visit along the route
[114].
A number of web and mobile applications have recently incorporated tourist route
recommendations within their core functionality [113], [2], [53]. In eect, most are TTDP
solvers (e.g. the City Trip Planner [1], the mtrip [2]) taking into account several user-
dened parameters within their recommendation logic (days of visit, preferences upon
POI categories, start/end location, visiting pace/intensity), while also allowing the user
to manually edit the derived routes, e.g. add/remove POIs. Recommended tours are
visualized on maps [1], [2], [53], allowing users to browse informative content on selected
POIs. Some tools also oer augmented reality views of recommended attractions (e.g., [2]).
The modeling of a TTDP is approached considering the following input data (see Fig-
ure 1):
A set of candidate POIs, each associated with a number of attributes (e.g. type,
location, popularity, opening days/hours, etc).
The travel time among POIs calculated using multi-modal routing information among
POIs, i.e. tourists are assumed to use all modes of transport available at the tourist
destination, including public transportation, walking and bicycle.
The prot of each POI, calculated as a weighted function of the objective and sub-
jective importance of each POI (subjectivity refers to the users individual preferences
and interests on specic POI categories).
The number of routes that must be generated, based upon the period of stay of the
user at the tourist destination.
The anticipated duration of visit of a user at a POI which derives from the average
duration and the users potential interest for that particular POI.
The daily time limit T that a tourist wishes to spend on visiting sights; the overall
daily route duration (i.e. the sum of visiting times plus the overall time spent moving
from a POI to another which is a function of the topological distance) should be kept
below T.
2
Figure 1: Input data and recommended itineraries in TTDP.
By solving a TTDP we expect to derive daily, ordered visits to POIs, while respecting
user constraints and POIs attributes. High quality TTDP solutions should feature POI rec-
ommendations that match tourist preferences and near-optimal feasible route scheduling.
The algorithmic and operational research literature include many route planning problem
modeling approaches, which may be used for dierent versions of TTDP. A well-known
optimization problem that may formulate a simple version of TTDP is the orienteering
problem (OP) [105]. The OP is based on the orienteering game, in which several locations
with an associated prot have to be visited within a given time limit. Each location may be
visited only once, while the aim is to maximize the overall prot collected on a single tour.
Clearly, the OP may be used to model the simplest version of the TTDP wherein the POIs
are associated with a prot (i.e. user satisfaction) and the goal is to nd a single tour that
maximizes the prot collected within a given time budget (time allowed for sightseeing in
a single day).
Extensions of the OP have been successfully applied to model more complicated versions
of the TTDP. The team orienteering problem (TOP) [29] extends the OP by considering
multiple tours (i.e. daily tourist itineraries). The TOP with time windows (TOPTW)
considers visits to locations within a predened time window (this allows modeling open-
ing and closing hours of POIs). The time-dependent TOPTW (TDTOPTW) considers
time dependency in the estimation of time required to move from one location to another
and therefore, it is suitable for modeling multi-modal transports among POIs. Several
further generalizations exist that allow the modeling of even more complicated versions of
the TTDP, e.g. the multi-constraint team orienteering problem with time windows (MC-
TOPTW) takes into account multiple user constraints such as the overall budget that may
3
Figure 2: Optimization problems relevant to the TTDP (arrows denote problem exten-
sions/generalizations).
be spent for POI entrance fees. A non-exhaustive illustration of the optimization problems
with relevance to the TTDP as referred to in the literature is given in Figure 2.
In this article we survey exact, approximate and heuristic approaches for solving the
TTDP and interesting variants of the TTDP. Section 2 and 3 present algorithmic tech-
niques for solving optimization problems that are employed for modeling dierent versions
of the TTDP. Specically, Section 3 surveys algorithmic approaches for solving single tour
versions of the TTDP i.e. problems aiming at nding a single tour that maximizes the
prot under certain constraints (OP and OPTW), and Section 3 surveys algorithmic ap-
proaches dealing with multiple tour versions of the TTDP (TOP, TOPTW, TDTOPTW).
It is noted that particular emphasis is given to algorithmic techniques for solving problems
highly relevant to more complicated and realistic versions of the TTDP (e.g. TOPTW and
TDTOPTW). Section 4 highlights combinatorial problems that may be used for model-
ing variants of the TTDP and surveys algorithmic approaches dealing with such problems.
Finally, Section 5 concludes the paper providing new prospects in tourist route planning re-
search. Specically, we discuss (i) quality improvements upon existing solution approaches,
(ii) modeling TOPTW generalizations, (iii) modeling problems relevant to TTDP and (iv)
employing parallel computing techniques to design new heuristics for the TTDP.
2 Single tour TTDP solution approaches
2.1 Orienteering Problem (OP)
The Orienteering Problem (OP) was introduced by Tsiligirides [105] named after a sport
game called orienteering. Other names used for OP are Selective Traveling Salesperson
4
Problem (STSP) [74], Maximum Collection Problem (MCP) [64] and Bank Robber Problem
[12]. OP can be formulated as follows: Let G = (V, E) be an edge-weighted graph with
prots (rewards or scores) on its nodes. Given a starting node s, a terminal node t and a
positive time limit (budget) B, the goal is to nd a path from s to t (or tour if s = t) with
length at most B such that the total prot of the visited nodes is maximized (see Figure
3).
Figure 3: OP illustration. Circles radius denote nodes prot.
OP can be formulated as an integer programming problem as follows [109]: Let N be
the number of nodes labelled by 1, 2, . . . , N where s = 1 and t = N, p
i
be the prot of
visiting node i and c
ij
be cost of traveling from i to j. For every path from 1 to N, if node
i is followed by node j we set the variable x
ij
equal to 1 or equal to 0 otherwise. Finally, u
i
denotes the place of node i in the path. With this notation we have the following relations:
max
N1

i=2
N

j=2
p
i
x
ij
, (1)
s.t.
N

j=2
x
1j
=
N1

i=1
x
iN
= 1, (2)
N1

i=1
x
ir
=
N

j=2
x
rj
1, for all r = 2, . . . , N 1, (3)
N1

i=1
N

j=2
c
ij
x
ij
B, (4)
2 u
i
N, for all i = 1, 2, . . . , N, (5)
u
i
u
j
+ 1 (N 1)(1 x
ij
), for all i, j = 2, . . . , N, (6)
x
ij
{0, 1}, for all i, j = 1, . . . , N. (7)
The objective function (1) is to maximize the total prot of visited nodes. Constraint (2)
ensures that the path starts at node 1 and ends at node N. Constraint (3) ensures that the
path starting at node 1 and ending at node N is connected and each node is visited at most
5
once. Constraint (4) ensures that the path meets the time budget. Finally, constraints (5)
and (6) ensure that there are no closed subtours.
The most important types of OP considered so far depend on whether the graph is
undirected or directed (undirected OP or directed OP), whether the nodes have dierent
or the same prots (weighted OP or unweighted OP), whether there is no xed terminal
node but only a xed starting node called root (rooted OP) or whether there are not xed
end points at all (unrooted OP) and their combinations. OP is harder than rooted OP,
which in turn is harder than unrooted OP, since algorithms for rooted OP can be used to
solve unrooted OP by considering each node of the graph as the root. Likewise, OP can
be used to solve rooted OP by considering as the starting node the root and each node of
the graph as the nishing node.
OP is NP-hard (e.g. see [58], [74]). Hence, exact solutions for OP are only feasible for
graphs with a small number of nodes. Some of the exact algorithms proposed for the OP
are based on branch-and-bound [74, 88] and branch-and-cut [54, 48]. There exist a number
of approximation algorithms for the above variants of OP, however, with high complexity.
Note that rooted OP is APX-hard (e.g. see [22], where it is proved that rooted OP is
NP-hard to approximate to within a factor of
1481
1480
).
Some helpful remarks concerning the approximability of certain OP variants are the
following:
In the approximation algorithms for the OP, the input graph can be restricted to
graphs having nodes with unit prot since Korula [69, Lemma 2.6] proved that an a-
approximation algorithm for OP with unit prots yields an a(1+O(1))-approximation
algorithm for weighted OP. The basic idea is to use a standard scaling technique to
adjust the weights into integers from 1 to n
2
, where n is the number of nodes, and
then to transform the graph to a new graph with at most n
3
nodes having unit prots.
A solution with the above approximation is derived for the weighted OP by applying
an a-approximation algorithm on the newly transformed graph.
An approach for approximating the unrooted OP in undirected graphs comes from
approximation algorithms for the k-TSP problem (nd a tour of minimal length while
visiting at least k nodes). The basic idea is to break such a tour into pieces bounded
by B and then pick the one with the largest prot (for more details, see [16]).
Usually, the approximation algorithms for OP have highest complexity in directed
graphs than in undirected graphs (e.g. see [31]).
One of the rst works for approximating the rooted OP is that of Arkin et al. [12] that
gives an (2 + )-approximation algorithm for OP restricted to points in the 2-dimensional
plane. The fundamental idea to approximate the rooted OP in undirected graphs was
presented by Blum et al. in [21], [22]. They use, as an intermediate step, the solution of
6
the min-excess (s t) path problem (nd a minimum-excess
1
path connecting xed nodes
s and t that visits at least k nodes or collecting at least k prot). The basic idea is to guess
2
the prot P
OPT
of the optimal solution of the rooted OP and try to compute for every node
the min-excess path from the root to the node that collects at least a xed fraction of P
OPT
,
until a path is found with length at most B. In this work they obtain a 4-approximation
algorithm for rooted OP in undirected graphs by using a (2 + )-approximation to the
min-excess (s t) path problem. In fact, most subsequent approximation algorithms (e.g.
see [31]) use the solution of a min-excess path problem as an intermediate step.
Later, Bansal et al. [18] give a 3-approximation algorithm for OP in metric spaces.
In their approach they show that a (2 + )-approximation to the min-excess (s t) path
problem can be used to obtain a 3-approximation for OP, hence, improving the previous
result by Blum et al. [21], [22].
Chen et al. [34] present a PTAS for the rooted OP in R
d
, where every location has
unit prot. In order to create the PTAS, an approximation algorithm is presented for the
kTSP in R
d
based on Mitchells approximation algorithm for the kTSP [81] and Aroras
work on the same problem[13].
Chekuri and Pal [33] give an O(log n)-approximation algorithm for solving the OP in
directed graphs that runs in quasi-polynomial time. In their formulation of OP, called
submodular OP, the total prot of the nodes visited is not necessarily the sum of the prot
of each node but has the submodular property, i.e., for subsets A, B of the set of nodes the
total weight f satises the inequality: f(A B) f(A) + f(B) f(A B).
Chekuri et al. [31] give approximation algorithms for the OP in directed and undirected
graphs. In particular, they give a (2 + )-approximation algorithm for the undirected OP
with running time n
O(1/)
and an O(log
2
OPT) approximation algorithm for directed OP,
where OPT denotes the number of nodes in an optimal solution. They follow Blum et al.
focusing on the k-stroll problem (i.e. nd a minimum length s t path that visits at least
k nodes) and give bi-criteria approximations for k-stroll in directed and undirected graphs
with respect to the path length and the number of nodes visited.
Nagarajan and Ravi [84] give an O(
log
2
n
log log n
)-approximation algorithm for OP in di-
rected graphs, by approximately solving a number of problems in the following order: from
minimum ratio ATSP to directed k-path problem, then to the minimum excess problem
and nally to OP in directed graphs. First, they present a polynomial time O(
log
2
n
log log n
) bi-
criteria approximation algorithm for the directed k-TSP problem (nd a minimum length
tour that contains a specied root and at least another k nodes), by using an O(
log
2
n
log log n
)-
approximation algorithm for minimum ratio ATSP problem, due to Asadpour et al [15].
They reduce the directed k-path problem to the directed OP More specically, they go
through from directed k-path problem to directed minimum excess problem and nally to
OP in directed graphs.
1
excess of an s t path is the dierence of the path length from the shortest s t path.
2
i.e., try exhaustive search
7
Table 1 summarizes the approximation algorithms for the OP in directed and undirected
graphs and their approximation ratio.
Table 1: Approximation algorithms for the OP
Reference Directed Undirected Approximation Time
OP OP Ratio
Blum et al. [21] 4 polynomial
Bansal et al. [18] 3 polynomial
Chekuri et al. [31] (2 + ) polynomial
Chekuri and Pal [33] O(log n) quasi-polynomial
Chekuri et al. [31] O(log
2
OPT) polynomial
Nagarajan & Ravi [84] O(
log
2
n
log log n
) polynomial
For practical applications, many researchers propose heuristics to tackle the OP, based
on dierent approaches. Some representative methods are discussed in the sequel. Tsili-
girides [105] presents two algorithms for OP. A stochastic algorithm based on Monte-Carlo
techniques that constructs a large number of routes and picks the one with the maximum
prot and a deterministic heuristic algorithm, that partitions the geographic area into
concentric circles and restricts the allowed routes into the sectors dened by the circles.
In [58] a center-of-gravity heuristic for the OP is presented where the solution tour is
constructed by the cheapest insertion procedure according to a combined measure for node
selection. Golden et al. in [57] improve the center-of-gravity heuristic by rewarding nodes
associated with above-average tours while penalizing those associated with below-average
tours.
In [87] Ramesh et al. propose a four-phase heuristic. After choosing the best solution
from iterations over a set of three phases (node insertion, edge exchange and node deletion),
a fourth phase is entered, where one attempts to insert unvisited nodes into the tour.
In [116] the authors apply a neural network approach to solve the OP. They derive an
energy function and learning algorithm for a modied, continuous Hopeld neural network.
Chao et al. [28] propose a heuristic algorithm for OP that proceeds as follows. Initially,
the set of nodes is partitioned in a greedy way into paths each with length bounded by
B and the current solution is the path with the most prot. Then an iterative method
is employed. At each iteration a local search procedure is applied to improve the current
solution. However, if a better solution is not found, a solution with slightly less prot is
accepted. At the end of the iteration a perturbation move is applied, wherein a number of
nodes (that depends on the current iteration) with the smallest ratio of prot to insertion
cost are removed from the solution.
In [55] a tabu search heuristic for the unrooted OP is presented. The algorithm itera-
tively inserts clusters of nodes in the current tour or removes a chain of nodes. Compared
8
to the previous approaches, this method reduces the chance to get trapped in a local op-
timum. Tests performed by the authors on randomly generated instances with up to 300
nodes show that the algorithm yields near-optimal solutions.
2.2 Orienteering Problem with Time Windows (OPTW)
In OP with Time Windows (OPTW) each node of the graph G can be visited only within
one or more specic time intervals (windows) which may be dierent for each node (see
Figure 4). Vansteenwegen et al. [109] argue that time windows signicantly aect the
nature of OP and its respective algorithmic approaches. For instance, reducing the travel
time by reordering scheduled visits, is no longer appropriate due to the time windows.
Actually, it has been proved that OPTW is NP-hard even on the line [106].
Figure 4: OPTW illustration (dashed lines denote the sheduled route, while triangles
opening/closing times)
Righini et al. [91] give two exact dynamic programming algorithms for OPTW. The
rst algorithm uses bidirectional search and the label of each node u used in the algorithm,
is a binary vector representing the nodes included in the path ending at u. In the second
method, the state space relaxation (SSR) [38] is applied, where the label is only an integer
denoting the number of visits along the path. Since in the second method a node may
be visited more than once due to the reduced information kept at each label, the authors
correct this by applying the decremental SSR (DSSR) method [90], which is an iterative
algorithm optimally solving the relaxed problem with the additional constraint that a
specic set of nodes cannot be visited more than once.
Kantor and Rosenwein [63] proposed two heuristics for solving the OPTW. The rst,
the insertion heuristic, incrementally builds the solution and at each step it selects the
node with the highest ratio of prot over insertion cost as the next node to be inserted
in the path. The second heuristic, the tree heuristic, is employed when the time windows
constraints are tight and the input graph nodes are relatively few. By a depth rst search
9
exploration of the input graph, it maintains a number of partial solutions simultaneously
and repeatedly inserts new nodes in these partially constructed paths as long as the at-
tempted insertion satises the problem constraints and some heuristic criteria quantifying
the potential solution improvement yield from this insertion.
Also, a number of OPTW approximation algorithms have been proposed in the lit-
erature. Bansal et al. [18] gave an (3 log
2
n)-approximation algorithm for OPTW. The
main idea is to partition the nodes into dierent groups according to their time windows
and in such a way that OPTW can be solved in each group ignoring time windows. The
nal solution is derived by stitching the solutions of these subproblems using a dynamic
programming approach.
Chekuri and Kumar [32] gave a 5-approximation algorithm for OPTW with at most k
distinct time windows that runs in time polynomial in (n)
k
, where is the maximum
distance in the metric space and n is the number of nodes. They utilize an approximation
algorithm for the maximum coverage problem with group budget constraints
3
and a 3-
approximation algorithm of Bansal et al [18] for OP.
Later, Chekuri and Pal [33] gave an O(log OPT)-approximation algorithm for rooted
OPTW in directed graphs where the total weight of the nodes visited has the submodular
property. Their approach, based on a variant of an algorithm for directed s-t connectivity
due to Savitch [92], is recursive and greedy and runs in quasi-polynomial time. An applica-
tion of this algorithm can be found in [37] where travel itineraries for a city are constructed
from information collected in the social breadcrumb Flickr about the preferences of tourists
visiting the city.
Also, Chekuri et al. [31] inspired by the technique of Bansal et al. [18] proved that
an -approximation algorithm for OP yields an O(max {log OPT, log L}) approximation
algorithm for OPTW in directed (and undirected) graphs, where OPT denotes the number
of nodes in an optimal solution and L is the ratio of the longest to the shortest time window.
Finaly, Frederickson et al. [50] proposed approximation algorithms for the travelling
repairman problem (TRP) in a metric graph or a tree. TRP is a variant of OPTW, which
aims at nding a path passing through the maximum number of nodes with each node
visited within its time window. First, the algorithm trims all time windows into subwindows
with specic ends and then for the nodes of each time window, the optimum k-path from
s to t [30] is solved. Last, the solutions found for each time window are combined into a
solution to the TRP by applying a dynamic programming approach. For the case that all
time windows have equal length, it is proved that the optimal solution for the trimmed
time windows is within factor of 3 from the optimal solution before trimming. Using the
above result, the algorithm has a 3-approximation ratio with running time O(n
4
) when
the input graph is a tree and a (6 + )-approximation for a general graph with n
4
n
O(
1

2
)
3
Given an integer k and a collection of subsets, of a set S, partitioned into groups, pick k subsets of that
collection such that the cardinality of their union is maximized with the restriction that at most one set is
picked from each group.
10
running time. Then, the authors generalize their method for time windows with dierent
lengths and they derive an O(log L)-approximation algorithm where L is the ratio of the
maximum to minimum time length of all input windows.
3 Multiple tour TTDP solution approaches
3.1 Team Orienteering Problem (TOP)
The extension of the OP to multiple tours was dened as the Team Orienteering Problem
by Chao et al. [29]. The TOP rst appeared in the literature with the name Multiple Tour
Maximum Collection Problem (MTMCP) by Butt and Cavalier [25]. TOP is an extension
of OP where the goal is to nd k paths (or tours) each with length bounded by B, that
have the maximum total collected prot (each non-starting, non-terminal node is visited
at most once along the k paths) (see Figure 5). TOP is NP-hard and APX-hard since OP
is a special case of TOP.
Figure 5: TOP illustration. Circles radius denote nodes prot.
TOP can be formulated as an integer programming problem as follows [109]: Further
to the notation for OP, given the integer k, let x
ijm
be equal to 1 if node i is followed by
node j in path m or equal to 0 otherwise, y
im
be equal to 1 if node i is visited in path m
or equal to 0 otherwise and u
im
be the position of node i in path m. With this notation
we have the following relations:
max
k

m=1
N1

i=2
p
i
y
im
, (8)
s.t.
k

m=1
N

j=2
x
1jm
=
k

m=1
N1

i=1
x
iNm
= k, (9)
k

m=1
y
rm
1, for all r = 2, . . . , N 1, (10)
11
N1

i=1
x
irm
=
N

j=2
x
rjm
= y
rm
, for all r = 2, . . . , N 1, m = 1, . . . , k (11)
N1

i=1
N

j=2
c
ij
x
ijm
B for all m = 1, . . . , k, (12)
2 u
im
N, for all i = 1, 2, . . . , N, m = 1, . . . , k (13)
u
im
u
jm
+ 1 (N 1)(1 x
ijm
), for all i, j = 2, . . . , N, m = 1, . . . , k (14)
x
ijm
, y
im
{0, 1}, for all i, j = 1, . . . , N, m = 1, . . . , k (15)
The objective function (8) is to maximize the total prot of visited nodes. Constraints
(9) and (10) ensure that each of the k paths starts at node 1 and ends at node N and that
each non-starting, non-terminal node is visited at most once. Constraint (11) ensures that
each path starting at node 1 and ending at node N is connected. Constraint (12) ensures
that the path meets the time budget. Finally, constraints (13) and (14) ensure that there
are no closed subtours.
Exact algorithms for TOP are presented by Butt et al. [26] and Boussier et al. [24].
Butt et al. [26] give an algorithm that optimally solves TOP by solving the relaxation
of the problem with the column generation technique together with a branch and bound
technique for deriving increasingly better solutions. Specically, the problem is formulated
as a set-partitioning problem and then a column generation procedure is applied. When
applying the branch and bound technique, the solution space is partitioned around a specic
node pair {u, v} with one subspace containing solutions where both u, v belong to the same
tour and the other one containing solutions where these two nodes cannot be part of the
same tour. The combination of column generation and branch-and-bound technique (also
known as branch-and-price in the literature) has also been applied in [24] for optimally
solving the TOP. The selection of the new columns to be included at each step of column
generation is reduced to solving an instance of Elementary Shortest Path Problem with
Resource Constraint by using a dynamic programming approach. Finally, in a branch and
bound phase, dierent branches are created according to either whether a node should be
visited or not or whether a particular edge should be included in a tour or not.
Blum et al. [22] present an approximation algorithm for variants of TOP in undirected
graphs, where the paths have a common start point and not a xed end point or they are
mutually disjoint. Their main idea is to iteratively apply algorithms for rooted OP setting
already visited node prots to zero. For the former case, applying this procedure using an
-approximation algorithm for rooted OP, an 1/(1e

) approximation ratio is obtained.

While, in the latter case where the paths are mutually disjoint, using an -approximation
algorithm for rooted OP, an ( + 1) approximation ratio is obtained.
In the sequel, we outline the most important heuristic approaches for TOP (see Table
2). The rst heuristic algorithm (BC) for TOP was presented by Butt and Cavalier [25].
They proposed a greedy algorithm that constructs the k tours successively. Every pair of
12
nodes obtains a weight that gives an estimate of how advantageous it is to include both
nodes in the same tour. Every tour initially contains the depot and the node pair with
the greater weight. Then, at each step the node belonging to the heaviest pair of nodes
with one of these nodes already in the tour is added to tour provided that this insertion is
feasible.
Table 2: TOP Heuristic Algorithms
Reference Algorithm Technique
Butt and Cavalier [25] BC Greedy Insertions
Chao et al. [29] CGW Local Search
Tang and Miller-Hooks [102] TMH Tabu Search
Archetti et al.[10] SVN, FVN Variable Neighbourhood Search
TS Tabu search
Ke et al. [65] ASe, ADC, Ant Colony Optimization
ARC, ASi
Vansteenwegen et al. [110] GLS Guided Local Search
Vansteenwegen et al. [112] SVNS Variable Neighbourhood Search
Souriau et al. [99] FPR, SPR GRASP with Path Relinking
Bouly et al. [23] MA Genetic Algorithm
Muthuswamy et al. [83] PSO Discrete Particle Swarm Optimization
The heuristic algorithm (CGW) for the TOP presented by Chao et al. in [29] extends
the one presented by the same authors for the OP in [28]. The main dierences of the two
algorithms are two. Firstly, in TOP the current solution contains the k (instead of one)
most protable paths. Secondly, in TOP there are two perturbation moves instead of one
that holds for OP. The rst move is identical for TOP and OP. In the second move of the
TOP algorithm, a number of nodes with the lowest prot are removed from the paths of
the solution.
In [102] a tabu search heuristic (TMH) for TOP is proposed by Tang and Miller-Hooks,
comprising three basic steps: initialization, solution improvement and evaluation. TMH is
embedded within an adaptive memory procedure that alternates between small and large
neighborhood stages during the solution improvement phase. Both random and greedy
procedures for neighborhood solution generation are employed, and infeasible as well as
feasible solutions are explored in the process. The heursitic has been compared against
CGW heuristic.
Archetti et al. [10] presented three metaheuristics solving the TOP. After dening a
number of local search moves that can be applied in the solution space of the problem
at hand, they present a tabu search heursitic and two variable neighborhood search [60]
heuristics (the fast variable neighborhood search - FVN and the slow variable neighborhood
search - SVN) which iteratively apply local search moves for gradually improving the
13
solution derived at each step. The authors compare their algorithms with TMH and CGW
and they show that each of the proposed heuristics improves the performance of TMH and
CGW on average. They also show that FVN represents a fair compromise between solution
quality and computational eort.
An Ant Colony Optimization-based heuristic algorithm (ACO) is proposed by Ke et al.
[65] for TOP. Specically, an iterative procedure is followed wherein the ants generate k
feasible tours by succesively inserting promising edges from previous iterations associated
with relatively low cost and high prot in their endnodes. Four methods, i.e., the sequential
(ASe), the deterministic-concurrent (ADC), the random-concurrent (ARC) and the simul-
taneous (ASi) methods, are proposed to construct candidate solutions in the framework of
ACO. The authors compare these methods with several existing approaches. The results
obtained by ASe are as good as the results obtained by Archetti et al. [10], however they
are faster to obtain. Therefore, it appears that ASe is a very good compromise between
solution quality and computational eort.
A guided local search [115] metaheuristic algorithm (GLS) for the TOP is presented by
Vansteenwegen et al. [110]. A solution to the problem is initialized as in CGW ([29] and
a local search procedure is applied to improve it. Finally, guided local search is employed
to ameliorate the eectiveness of the local search. In [112] Vansteenwegen et al. propose a
Skewed Variable Neighbourhood Search (SVNS) framework for the TOP. The algorithms
apply a combination of intensication and diversication procedures. The diversication
procedures remove a chain of points in each path. The available budget spread over dierent
paths within the current solution is gathered into a single path in the new solution. The
intensication procedures try to increase the score or to decrease the travel time in a path.
The SVNS algorithm clearly outperforms the GLS algorithm.
In [97] the authors employ the Greedy Randomised Adaptive Search Procedure (GRASP)
to solve TOP. GRASP is a metaheuristic originally introduced by Feo and Resende [47].
GRASP performs a number of iterations that consist of a constructive procedure followed
by a local search approach. The constructive procedure, based on a ratio between greedi-
ness and randomness, inserts nodes one by one until all paths are full. Thus, a new initial
solution is generated during every iteration. Then, the initial solution is improved by the
local search procedure which alternates between reducing the total time of the solution
and increasing its total prot, until the solution is locally optimal. The dierent itera-
tions are independent and the best solution found is saved and returned as a result. In
[99] Souriau et al. introduce a GRASP with Path Relinking metaheuristic approach for
solving the TOP. The goal of the Path Relinking extension is to avoid the independence
of the dierent iterations of the GRASP by adding a memory component, i.e. a pool of
elite solutions consisting of a number of best solutions. At each iteration the best solution,
considered for insertion into the pool of elite solutions, is returned by a procedure that
takes as arguments a starting solution and a guiding solution and visits the solutions on
the virtual path in the search space that connects the staring and the guiding solution.
A fast variant (FPR) and a slow variant (SPR) of the approach are tested using a large
14
set of test instances from the literature. The two heuristics are compared against other
state-of-the-art approaches. The quality of the results of the slow variant is comparable to
the quality obtained by the best algorithms of Archetti et al. [10] and Ke et al. [65].
Bouly et al. [23] propose a genetic algorithm (MA) for TOP enhanced with local search
techniques. A population of chromosomes is constructed where a chromosome is a sequence
of nodes from which a solution to TOP is obtained by applying a PERT
4
like technique.
A child chromosome is produced by a couple of chromosomes by applying a crossover
technique followed by a local search procedure with a certain probability. Computational
results are compared with those of dierent methods such as CGW, TMH, the slow VNS
algorithm (SVN), and the sequential method in the framework of ACO. It appears that
MA outperforms SVN in terms of eciency and is quite equivalent in terms of stability
([23])
Muthuswamy et al. [83] tackle the TOP using discrete particle swarm optimization
(PSO), creating one tour at a time. At each step a population of particles is generated
such that each particle represents a feasible tour. Then, using PSO particles are heading
for more protable solutions (tours). The whole procedure is enhanced with local search
techniques.
In the survey article of Vansteenwegen et al. [109], a summary of the performance of
the best TOP algorithms is given. The comparisons are based on 157 benchmark instances
([29]). For each algorithm, the number of times the best known solution is found, is given
together with the average gap to the best solution and the average computational time.
3.1.1 Team Orienteering Problem with Time Windows (TOPTW)
The TOP with Time Windows (TOPTW) introduced by Vansteenwegen P. [107], extends
TOP adding the constraint of limited time availability of serviced nodes (this corresponds
to the opening and closing hours of a POI). Exact solutions for TOPTW are feasible for
graphs with very restricted number of nodes (e.g. see the work by Z. Li and X. Hu [78]
which is used on networks of up to 30 nodes).
Li and Hu formulated the Team Orienteering Problem with Capacity Constraint and
Time Window (TOPCTW) [78] (an extension of TOPTW where each customer has a
demand and the serving vehicle has a capacity limitation) and obtained exact solutions
using an integer linear programming solver. However, this approach is inappropriate for
real-time applications.
Given the complexity of the problem, the main body of TOPTW literature exclusively
involves heuristic algorithms. Notably, existing methods are metaheuristics that involve,
(a) an insertion step (adds a visit to one of the k tours) iteratively performed until a
rst feasible solution (or a set of feasible solutions) is obtained, and (b) a sort of local
search step that aims at escaping from local optima. Those two steps are repeated until a
termination criterion is met. Depending on the insertion step principle, existing methods
4
program evaluation review technique
15
are designated either as deterministic (those that always produce the same solution for
given problem instances) or as stochastic or probabilistic (those that involve a degree of
randomness in solutions generation). Probabilistic methods are generally shown to yield
high quality solutions (as they perform more extensive search of the solution space) at the
expense of increased execution time.
Labadi et al. [70] propose a local search heuristic algorithm for TOPTW based on a
variable neighbourhood structure. In the local search routine the algorithm tries to replace
a segment of a path with nodes not included in a path that oer more prot. For that,
an assignment problem related to the TOPTW is solved and based on that solution the
algorithm decides which arcs to insert in the path.
Lin et al. [79] propose a heuristic algorithm based on simulated annealing (SA) for
TOPTW. On each iteration a neighbouring solution is obtained from the current solution
by applying one of the moves swap, insertion or inversion, with equal probability. If the
new solution is more protable than the current and with a probability depending on the
dierence of prots of the two solutions in the opposite case, the new solution is adopted
and becomes the current one. After applying the above procedure for a certain number of
iterations the best solution found so far is further improved by applying local search.
The Iterated Local Search (ILS) heuristic proposed by Vansteenwegen et al. [111] is
the fastest known algorithm proposed for TOPTW [109]. ILS denes an insertion and a
shake step. The insertion step adds, one by one, new visits to a tour, ensuring that all
subsequent visits (those scheduled after the insertion place) remain feasible, i.e. they still
satisfy their time window constraint. For each visit i that can be inserted, the cheapest
insertion time cost is determined. For each of these visits the heuristic calculates a ratio,
which represents a measure of how protable is to visit i versus the time delay this visit
incurs. Among them, the heuristic selects the one with the highest ratio for insertion. The
shake step is used to escape from local optima. During this step, one or more visits are
removed in each tour in search of non-included visits that may either decrease the tour
time length or increase the overall collected prot.
Overall, ILS represents a fair compromise in terms of speed versus deriving routes of
reasonable quality. However, ILS presents a number of shortcomings:
In the insertion step, ILS may be attracted and included into the solution some high-
score nodes isolated from high-density topology areas. This may trap ILS and make
it infeasible to visit far located areas with good candidate noses due to prohibitively
large travelling time (possibly leaving considerable amount of the overall time budget
unused). For instance, in Figure 6(a), the itinerary {1, p, q, r, s, n} would yield more
prot and fully utilize the available time budget, compared to the solution {1, i, j, n}.
During the insertion step, ILS rules out candidate nodes with high prot value as
long as they are relatively time-expensive to reach (from nodes already included in
routes). This is also the case even when whole groups of high prot nodes are located
16
within a restricted area of the plane but far from the current route instance. In case
that the route instance gradually grows and converges towards the high prot nodes,
those may be no longer feasible to insert due to overall tour time constraints. For
instance, in Figure 6(b), ILS inserts i, l, j and k. Although p and q have larger
prot value, they are not selected on the rst four insertion steps since they are
associated with large Shift values. On the next step, q is associated with the highest
Ratio, however its insertion violates the tour feasibility constraint; hence, it is not
performed.
The ILS shake step examines a very narrow space of alternative solutions. For in-
stance ILS neglects swaps among visits included on the same or dierent itineraries
which could potentially decrease the involved tours length, thereby creating room
for accommodating new visits until a new local optima is reached.
(a) (b)
Figure 6: Weaknesses of ILS.
Montemanni and Gambardella proposed an ant colony system (ACS) algorithm [82]
to derive solutions for a hierarchical generalization of TOPTW, wherein more than the k
required routes are constructed. At the expense of the additional overhead, those additional
fragments are used to perform exchanges/insertions so as to improve the quality of the k
tours. The algorithm comprises two phases:
Construction phase: Ants are sent out sequentially; when at node i, an ant chooses
probabilistically the next node j to visit (i.e. to include into the tour) based on two
factors:
The pheromone trail
ij
(i.e. a measure on how good it has been in the past to
include arc (i, j) in the solution).
The desirability n
ij
, (a node j is more desirable when it is associated with high
prot, it is not far from i, and its time window is used in a suitable way).
Local search: performed upon the solutions derived from construction phase, aiming
at taking them down to a local optimum.
17
ACS has been shown to obtain high quality results (that is, low average gap to the
best known solution) at the expense of prolonged execution time, practically prohibitive
for online applications.
Tricoire et al. [104] deal with the Multi-Period Orienteering Problem with Multiple
Time Windows (MuPOPTW), a generalization of TOPTW, wherein each node may be
assigned more than one time window on a given day, while time windows may dier on
dierent days. Both mandatory and optional visits are considered. The motivation behind
this modelling is to facilitate individual route planning of eld workers and sales representa-
tives. The authors developed two heuristic algorithms for the MuPOPTW: a deterministic
constructive heuristic which provides a starting solution, and a stochastic local search al-
gorithm, the Variable Neighbourhood Search (VNS), which considers random exchanges
between chains of nodes.
Vansteenwegen et al. [109] argue that a detailed comparison of TOPTW solution
approaches (i.e. ILS, ACS and the algorithm of Tricoire et al. [104]), is impossible since
the respective authors have used (slightly) dierent benchmark instances. Nevertheless, it
can be concluded that ILS has the advantage of being very fast, while ACS and the approach
of Tricoire et al. [104] (2010) have the advantage of obtaining high quality solutions.
Labadi et al. [71], [72] recently proposed a method that combines the greedy randomized
adaptive search procedure (GRASP) with the evolutionary local search (ELS). GRASP
generates independent solutions (using some randomized heuristic) further improved by a
local search procedure. ELS generates multiple copies of a starting solution (instead of a
single copy generated in ILS) using a random mutation (perturbation) and then applies
a local search on each copy to yield an improved solution. GRASP-ELS derives solutions
of comparable quality and signicantly less computational eort to ACS. Compared to
ILS, GRASP-ELS gives better quality solutions at the expense of increased computational
eort. Table 3 summarizes the performance of GRASP-ESP, ILS and ACS presented in
[72]. This comparison is based on a number of sets of instances: sets c100, r100, rc100 and
c200, r200, rc200 designed by Solomon [95] and pr01-10, pr11-20 designed by Cordeau et al.
[40]. The table reports for each method and for dierent number of tours k (k = 1, ..., 4),
the average gap to the best known solution and the average computational time, over all
instance sets. It appears that GRASP-ELS derives solutions of comparable quality and
signicantly less computational eort to ACS; compared to ILS, GRASP-ELS gives better
quality solutions but it needs more computational eort.
Garcia et al. introduced the Multi-Constrained Team Orienteering Problem with Time
Windows (MCTOPTW) [51]; each visit in the MCTOPTW is associated with a number
of attributes; the sum of those attributes values is bounded by a max value (e.g. the sum
of attractions entrance fee should not exceed an overall budget or the total time spent in
parks cannot exceed a given time threshold). The proposed algorithm is based on ILS [111],
incorporating two dierent aspects: (a) The feasibility check of visit insertions caters for
checking constraints in addition to time feasibility; (b) the ratio function determining the
candidate visit to be inserted is adapted so as to associate each attribute constraint with
18
Table 3: Comparison of TOPTW Metaheuristics
# of tours k ILS GRASP-ELS ACS
Gap (%) Time (s) Gap (%) Time (s) Gap (%) Time (s)
k=1 2.1 1.2 0.1 2.6 0.9 811.4
k=2 1.9 2.6 0.1 7.5 1.0 1812.9
k=3 1.9 3.6 0.1 8.8 0.8 1588.0
k=4 1.8 4.7 0.2 11.7 0.5 1286.9
a special weight and include the available quantity of each constraint on the route. For
instance, if the total entrance fee constraint is assigned a relatively high weight, the algo-
rithm favors insertions of visits with relatively low entrance fee, even more so if currently
selected visits sum to low overall fee (relatively to the fee threshold).
Souriau et al. [98] studied the Multi-Constraint Team Orienteering Problem with Mul-
tiple Time Windows (MCTOPMTW), in eect an extension of MCTOPTW which allows
dening dierent/ multiple time windows for dierent days. The proposed MCTOPMTW
algorithm is based on a hybrid ILS-GRASP approach: GRASP yields an initial solution
(GRASP involves a degree of randomness in the insertion phase) and the shake routine
of ILS is used thereafter to derive an improved solution. The authors report that the
ILS-GRASP algorithm yields fairly quality solutions, while achieving computation time
suitable for online applications.
3.2 Time Dependent Team Orienteering Problem with Time Windows
(TDTOPTW)
Time-dependent route planning incorporates time dependency in calculating cost of edges,
i.e. travelling times among nodes. Time dependency is useful for modeling transfers
among nodes through multimodal public transportation. Time-dependent graphs has been
investigated in almost all variants of the orienteering problems, from the basic OP to the
TOPTW.
Time Dependent OP (TDOP) was introduced by Formin and Lingas [49]. TDOP
is MAX-SNP-hard since a special case of TDOP, time-dependent maximum scheduling
problem is MAX-SNP-hard [100]. An exact algorithm for solving TDOP is given by Li et
al [77] using a mixed integer programming model and a pre-node optimal labeling algorithm
based on the idea of dynamic programming. Moreover, Li [76] proposes an exact algorithm
for TDTOP based again on dynamic programming principles. However, both algorithms
are of exponential complexity. Fomin and Lingas [49] give a (2+) approximation algorithm
for rooted and unrooted TDOP (which runs in polynomial time if the ratio R between
the maximum and minimum traveling time between any two sites is constant). When
considering unrooted TDOP, its running time is O(

2R
2
(
2+

!
2R
2

n
2R
2
(
2+

)+1
), and for
19
rooted TDOP its running time increases by the multiplicative factor O(
Rn

) (the key idea is

derived from Spieksmas algorithm [100] for Job Interval Selection Problem, which employs
a divide-and-conquer approach). First, the problem is split in smaller ones. Exact solutions
are found to each smaller problem and later combined (stitch) to obtain an approximate
solution.
Abbaspour et al. [3] investigated a variant of Time Dependent OP with Time Windows
(TDOPTW) in urban areas, where the nodes are partitioned into the POIs (associated with
prots and time windows) and multimodal transportation stops which do not have prot.
A genetic algorithm is proposed for the problem that uses as a subroutine another genetic
algorithm for solving the shortest path problem between POIs.
TDTOPTW is the problem that better models more complicated and realistic TTDP
requirements among all problems and approaches surveyed in this article. TDTOPTW is
particulary complex as it adds time dependency of arcs to TOPTW. Zenker et al. [119]
described a tourism-inspired problem that refers to TDTOPTW and presented ROSE, a
mobile application assisting pedestrians to locate events and locations, moving through
public transport connections. ROSE incorporates three main services: recommendation,
route generation and navigation. The authors identied the route planning problem to
solve and they described it as a multiple-constrained destination recommendation with time
windows using public transportation. However, no algorithmic solution to this problem has
been proposed.
The work of Garcia et al. [51], [52] is the rst to address algorithmically the TD-
TOPTW and is based on the algorithm by Vansteenwegen et al. [111] for the TOPTW.
The authors present two dierent approaches to solve TDTOPTW, both applied on real
urban test instances. The rst approach involves a pre-calculation step, computing the
average travel times between all pairs of POIs, allowing reducing the TDTOPTW to a
regular TOPTW. A repair procedure introduces the real travel times between the POIS of
the derived TOPTW solution. In case that the TOPTW solution is infeasible (due to vio-
lating the time windows of POIs included in the solution), a number of visits are removed.
The second approach considers direct public transportations, without transfers, and as-
sumes only periodic service schedules. It modies the insert procedure of the TOPTW
ILS heuristic [111] by introducing a few new concepts and formulas to keep the concepts
updated, and making possible the local and ecient evaluation of the possible insertion of
an extra POI. The authors propose two variants of the second approach that take transfers
into account. The st variant is based on precalculating all required values for each pair
of POIs. To reduce the number of calculations, the notion of the period of a transfer
connection is used, dened as the least common multiple of the periods of all services
involved in the transfer. The second variant models transfers as direct connections. The
waiting time at the transfers is approximated by half of the period of the second service
of the transfer. The authors tested all approaches for a set of instances based on real data
for a city with around 50 POIS and with high frequency of public transportation. Based
on the results of the tests the following can be concluded:
20
The second approach (real travel time with no transfers) gives good solutions only
for cities with a small number of POI to POI connections that are unfeasible without
transfers. The approach needs low computation time (the same order of magnitude
with the TOPTW algorithm [111]).
In the case that the average travel times are good approximations of the real travel
times, the rst approach (average travel time approach) gives only slightly worse
solutions compared to the second approach and its variants (real travel time ap-
proaches). This happens only when we have high frequency of public transportation.
The computation time of the rst approach is comparable with the one of the second
approach.
Both variants of the second approach improve the results obtained by the real travel
time approach with no transfers (considering transfers widens the search space and
leads to better results [52]). The rst variant, i.e. the real time approach based on
the precalculation, is not appropriate for big cities with a large number of POIS, as a
lot of memory is required to store the precalculated values and retrieving the values
is too time consuming. The second variant is less accurate than the rst one but it
is more suitable for bigger cities.
4 TTDP variants
Clearly, the combinatorial problems discussed in Section 2 and Section 3 closely match the
TTDP modeling requirements. However, a large number of relevant problems investigated
in the optimization algorithms literature could also capture various aspects and model-
ing parameters of TTDP variants and closely related problems. Algorithmic approaches
to solve such problems are reviewed herein, explaining their utility in addressing TTDP
variants and closely related problem requirements.
The Travelling Salesman Problem with Prots (TSPP) is a bicriteria generalization of
TSP with two conicting objectives. In TSPP we are given a network in which nodes are
associated with prots and links with travel costs, and the goal is to nd a tour (which starts
and nishes at a specied node - the depot) over a subset of nodes such that the collected
prot is maximized while the travel cost is minimized. The problem was introduced under
the name multiobjective vending problem in [66]. In [19] the authors gave the rst exact
Pareto fronts (sets of non-dominated solutions) for TSPP instances obtained from classical
TSP instances, available in the TSPLIB [89]. In [62] a hybrid meta-heuristic was presented
that yields high-quality approximations of the ecient frontier for TSPP.
There are three single-criterion variants of TSPP based on how the two objectives of
maximizing the collected prot and minimizing the travel cost are handled:
(i) The OP seeks for a tour that maximizes the total collected prot while maintaining
21
the travel cost under a given value, i.e., the travel cost objective is stated as a
constraint.
(ii) The Protable Tour Problem (PTP) introduced in [43], searches for a tour that
maximizes the collected prot minus the travel cost, i.e., the two objectives are
combined in one objective function.
(iii) The Prize Collecting TSP (PCTSP) introduced in [17] aims at nding a tour that
minimizes the travel cost, with the total tour prot being not smaller than a given
value, i.e., the prot objective is stated as a constraint.
TSP is a special case of both PTP and PCTSP and, therefore, the two problems belong
to the class of NP-hard problems. Bienstock et al. [20] developed the rst approximation
algorithm for PTP with a performance guarantee bound of 5/2. This bound was improved
in [56] where a 2 1/(n 1)-approximation algorithm was given, where n is the number
of nodes. Awerbuch et al. [16] gave an approximation algorithm for the PCTSP based on
an approximation algorithm for the k-minimum-spanning-tree problem ([14]). There also
exists literature on exact, heuristic and metaheuristic algorithms for PTP and PCTSP as
well as variants of these problems (see [46] for a survey).
A number of OP variants have been introduced in the literature to model TTDP variants
as well as other practical problems:
1. The Generalized Orienteering Problem (GOP), wherein each node of the network is
assigned a set of benet values. For example, in the case of a POI, the benet values
may be related to natural beauty, cultural interest, historical signicance, educational
interest. The overall objective function may comprise any combination of the dierent
benets. Nonlinear objective functions make the GOP more dicult to solve than
OP. In [116] a heuristic was designed to solve GOP using articial neural networks,
while in [117] a straightforward genetic algorithm was given that yields comparable
results. In [94] an iterative algorithm was presented for the problem.
2. The Multi-Objective Orienteering Problem (MOOP) is the multi-objective extension
of the OP which was formulated in [93] as follows. Each node (POI) may be assigned
to dierent categories (e.g., culture, history, leisure, shopping) and provide dierent
benets for each category. The aim of MOOP is to nd all Pareto ecient solutions
without violating the maximum travel cost restriction. In [93] two metaheuristic
solution techniques for the bi-objective OP were presented. The rst is an adaptation
of the Pareto Ant Colony Optimization metaheuristic developed by Doerner et al.
[44]. The second is a multi-objective extension of VNS [60].
3. The following stochastic variants of the OP have been studied in the literature:
The Orienteering Problem with Stochastic Prots (OPSP), in which the nodes
are associated with normally distributed prots. The problem was introduced
22
in [61] and aims at nding a tour that starts and nishes at the depot, visits a
subset of nodes within a time limit, and maximizes the probability of collecting
more than a prespecied target prot level. In [61] the authors present an exact
solution approach based on a parametric formulation of the problem for solving
small problem instances and a Pareto-based bi-objective genetic algorithm for
larger instances that is based on the conict between high mean prot and low
variance in a solution.
The Stochastic Orienteering problem (SOP), in which each node is associated
with a deterministic prot and a random service time. The visit time of a POI is
not known until the visit is completed. The problem combines aspects of both
the stochastic knapsack problem with uncertain item sizes and the OP. The
stochastic orienteering problem was introduced in [59] where an O(log log B)-
approximation algorithm was presented.
The Orienteering Problem with Stochastic Travel and Service Times (OPSTS)
which was introduced in [27], wherein both travel and service times are stochas-
tic. If a node is visited, a reward is received, but if it is not, a penalty may
be incurred. This problem reects the challenges of an employee of a company
who, on a given day, may have more customers to visit than he can serve. In [27]
heuristics for general problem instances and computational results for a variety
of parameter settings were given.
4. The OP with Compulsory Vertices (OPCV) discussed in [54], models the variant of
OP in which a subset of the nodes has to be visited. In TTDP modeling, these
compulsory nodes may be signicant POIs that should be included in any itinerary.
Gendreau et al. ([54]) developed a branch-and-cut algorithm to solve to optimality
problem instances with up to 100 nodes, some of which are compulsory.
The Vehicle Routing Problem (VRP) can be described as the problem of designing
optimal delivery or collection routes from a depot to a number of nodes subject to certain
constraints. The most common constraints are (i) capacity constraints i.e., a demand
is attached to each node and the sum of weights loaded on any route may not exceed
the vehicle capacity, (ii) time constraints over individual routes, (iii) time windows, and
(iv) precedence relations between pairs of nodes. Although many variants of the classical
VRP have been studied based on dierent constraints (e.g., the Capacity-constrained VRP
(CVRP), the Time or Distance constrained VRP (DVRP), the Vehicle Routing Problem
with Time Windows (VRPTW), etc.) only a few can model tourist trip design problems.
In the sequel, we discuss two problems that can formulate useful variants of TTDP: the
DVRP and the Minimum Path Cover Problem (MPCP).
In DVRP, given a depot node r and a distance constraint D the goal is to nd a min-
imum cardinality set of tours originating from r and corresponding to routes for vehicles,
that covers all the nodes in the network ([73], [75], [85]). Each tour is required to have
23
length at most D. DVRP may formulate the following problem: We are given a set of
POIs and we are asked to determine the minimum number of days that will be needed to
visit all POIs without violating the constraint of the available time per day. The unrooted
version of DVRP, dened as the minimum path cover problem (MPCP) in [11], seeks for
the minimum number of paths each of length at most D, that cover all the nodes of the
network. Note that in MPCP, the paths may start and end at any two nodes. MPCP
can be reduced to DVRP by adding a depot node that is located at some large distance L
from all nodes, and setting the distance constraint to D + 2L. In [75] DVRP was studied
under the objectives of total distance and number of tours. It was shown that the optimal
solutions under both objectives are closely related, and any approximation guarantee for
one objective implies a guarantee with an additional loss of factor 2, for the other objective.
In [85] the authors presented an (O(log 1/), 1 + )-approximation algorithm: i.e., for any
> 0, the algorithm provides a solution violating the length bound by a 1 + factor, while
using at most O(log 1/) times the optimal number of tours. The algorithm partitions
the nodes of the network into subsets, according to their distance from the depot, and
solves the unrooted DVRP with appropriate distance bounds on each subset. To solve the
unrooted DVRP the 3approximation algorithm for the minimum path cover problem of
Arkin et al.([11]) is employed that proceeds as follows. First, it guesses the solution value
of k and then nds k paths with total length at most 2kD that cover the nodes of the
network. Finally, it cuts the paths into smaller paths with length less than or equal to D.
The above variants of VRP assume that all nodes must be visited and there is no
prot collected when visiting a node. Archetti et al. ([10]) name the extension of TSP
with prots to multiple tours as Vehicle Routing Problem with Prots (VRPP). In VRPP
visiting the whole set of nodes is not compulsory; a prot is collected when visiting a node,
while collecting the prots is distributed over several vehicles with limited capacity. Known
variants of the VRPP is the Prize-Collecting VRP (PCVRP), the Capacitated Protable
Tour Problem (CPTP) [8], and the VRP with prots and time deadlines (VRPP-TD). In
PCVRP the main objective is a linear combination of three objectives: minimization of
total distance traveled, minimization of vehicles used, and maximization of prizes collected
[103]. In CPTP the objective is to maximize the dierence between the total collected
prot and the total travel cost [8]. In VRPP-TD, in addition to the capacity constraints,
there are node-specic temporal constraints referred to as time deadlines. The objective
function is the same with the function of CPTP [4].
The extension of the OP to multiple tours, i.e., the TOP, is a special case of VRP
with prots. Archetti et al. ([8]) introduced the Capacitated Team Orienteering Problem
(CTOP) as a TOP with an additional constraint, i.e., a nonnegative demand is associated
with each node and the total demand in each tour may not exceed the given capacity
constraint. They present exact and heuristic algorithms that are extentions of schemes for
solving the TOP. The exact algorithm is an adaptation of a branch-and-price scheme rst
presented in [24], while the heuristic algorithms are based on the heursitic solutions for
TOP given in [10]. In [7] a new branch-and-price scheme is presented to solve the CTOP.
24
A column-based heuristic is applied at each node of the branch-and-bound tree in order to
obtain primal bound values.
Figure 7: Variants of TTDP (solid arrows denote problem variants, while dashed arrows
denote generalizations).
In all the above cited problems (see Figure 7) the sites/customers are represented by the
nodes of a network. Also, the network nodes are associated with prots and/or demands.
There is a limited literature on arc routing problems with prots i.e., problems in which
the sites/customers are represented by the arcs of a network and the prots/demands are
associated with the arcs. One such problem is the Prize-collecting Rural Postman Problem
(PRPP) dened in [6]. In PRPP the arcs are associated with prots and costs, and the
objective is to nd a tour that maximizes the dierence between the collected prot and the
travel cost. Note that PRPP is the arc routing counterpart of the protable tour problem
(PTP). Problems related to post delivery and garbage collection can be modelled using
PRPP, which has been studied from the algorithmic point of view in [45] and in [5].
In [9] the undirected Capacitated Arc Routing Problem with Prots(CARPP) was
considered which is the arc routing counetrpart of the capacitated TOP (CTOP): a prot
and a nonnegative demand is associated with each arc and the objective is to determine
a path for each available vehicle in order to maximize the total collected prot, without
violating the capacity and time limit constraints of each vehicle. The authors consider
an application where carriers can select potential customers for transporting their goods.
Another potential application is the creation of personalized bicycle trips. Based on the
bikers personal interests, starting and ending point and the available time, a personalized
trip can be composed using the selection of arcs that better match with the cyclists prole.
The study of the combination of the orienteering problem and the arc routing problem
with prots, under the name Mixed Orienteering Problem (MOP), where prots are asso-
25
ciated to nodes as well as to arcs, is proposed in [109]. This problem is very interesting in
the context of tourist trip planning as variants of MOP can be used to formulate TDDP
variants where certain routes may be of tourist interest, in addition to attractions. To the
best of our knowledge, no research has been done on MOP.
5 New prospects in tourist route planning problems
5.1 Quality improvement upon existing solution approaches
Evidently, extensions of the elementary OP problem (such as the TOPTW and the TD-
TOPTW), which strongly resemble TTDP modeling, are particularly complex; hence, even
heuristic approaches that derive high quality approaches (e.g. the algorithms that deal
with TOPTW [72], [82], [104]) cannot meet the real-time execution requirement of TTDP
web/mobile applications. Notably, ILS [29 ] and the algorithm of Garcia et al. [52] (pro-
posed for TOPTW and TDTOPTW, respectively) signicantly reduce execution time.
However, it appears that several promising new directions exist to further improve the
quality of solutions derived by those algorithms.
For instance, the insertion phase of ILS overlooks attractive candidate nodes (i.e. POIs
associated with relatively high prot) located far from currently selected nodes, as the
insertion of such nodes would considerably increase route travel time. This is also the case
when considering larger groups of nearby attractive candidate nodes located far from the
current solutions nodes. In such scenarios, the increased travel cost of visiting the rst
node would be soon compensated by successive visits to other nearby interesting sites;
yet, deterministic approaches like ILS will fail to incorporate such groups of nodes into
derived solutions as they examine candidate nodes individually. In fact, realistic TTDP
problem instances are likely to match such high-prot node distribution patterns. Namely,
city tourist attraction maps typically include distinct areas (possibly far located from each
other or from tourist hotels) with high density of must-see POIs.
A way around this problem would be the identication of node clusters located in
close proximity with relatively high average prot, prior to executing the insertion phase.
Several cluster analysis algorithms such as the k-means or the fuzzy c-means clustering
[118] could serve for partitioning available nodes into separate groups (clusters). Certainly,
the clustering criteria could be adjusted to incorporate several attributes (in addition to
distance), such as the feasibility of successive visits to cluster nodes with respect to their
time windows. Thereafter, several alternative insertion criteria could be examined to bias
solutions including such node clusters. It is noted that the clustering procedure could be
performed oine to save online queries execution time.
Another characteristic of TTDP overlooked by TOPTW algorithms is the fact that,
typically, POIs time windows largely overlap. This fact could be utilized to eectively
reduce TOPTW to TOP and thereafter apply perturbations typically used in TOP algo-
rithms (such as 2-opt exchanges) to further improve derived solutions.
26
5.2 Modeling and solving TOPTW generalizations
The state-of-the-art relevant to the OP and VRP families of problems presented in previous
sections, reveals that little has been done in regards with tourist trip design problems that
have more complicated requirements and constraints, e.g. allowing modeling multiple user
constraints and transfers through public transportation. This highlights a promising eld
of research which calls for modeling and solving extensions of TOPTW and TDTOPTW
that take into account realistic TTDP issues or constraints like the following:
Weather conditions: museums may be more appropriate to visit than open-air sites
in rainy or relatively cold days, while the contrary may be true in sunny days; hence,
route planning could take into account weather forecast information in recommending
daily itineraries.
Accessibility features of sites should be taken into account when recommending visits
to individuals with motor disabilities.
Tourists are commonly under inexible budget restrictions when considering accom-
modation, meals, means of transport or visits to POIs with entrance fees. Hence,
next to the time budget, money budget further constrains the selection of POI visits.
Recommended tourist routes that exclusively comprise POI visits and last longer than
a few hours are unlikely to be followed closely. Tourists typically enjoy relaxing and
breaks as much as they enjoy visits to POIs. A realistic route should therefore provide
for breaks either for resting (e.g. at a nearby park) or for a coee and meal. Coee
and meal breaks are typically specic in number, while respective recommendations
may be subject to strict time window (e.g. meal should be scheduled around noon)
and budget constraints.
The assumption of POIs having periodic time windows is invalid. POIs typically
operate at specic days weekly, possibly with varying opening and closing hours.
Hence, TTDP modelling should take into account multiple time windows.
Max-n Type [96] constrains the selection of POIs by allowing stating a maximum
number of certain types of POIs, per day or for the whole trip. e.g. maximum two
museum visits on the rst day. Likewise, mandatory visits (i.e. tours including at
least one visit to a POI of certain type, such as a visit to a church) could also be
asked for.
Tourists commonly prefer strolling downtown rather than visiting museums. In such
cases, tourists may prefer to walk along routes featuring buildings and squares with
historical value or routes with scenic beauty. Such routes are likely to be preferred also
when moving among POIs, e.g. a detour through a car-free street along a medieval
castle walls would be more appreciated than following a shortest path though streets
with car trac.
27
5.3 Modeling and solving relevant problems
Modeling and solving of problems relevant to TTDP represents another promising research
direction. For instance, hotel selection is often a cumbersome task for tourists unfamiliar
with hotels and POI locations or with the structure of the public transportation network in
the tourist destination area. This is even more true when planning long road trips across
large geographic areas (in such scenarios, changing accommodation in daily basis is com-
mon) [108]. Several criteria could apply in hotel recommendation, including cost, amenities
or cost-for-prot (i.e. select an aordable hotel suitably located so as to maximize the over-
all prot collected from POI visits throughout the whole trip). Restaurants selection is
equally important as meal/dinner breaks are mandatory, while constrained by several -
often contradictory - user preferences (e.g. budget, diet preferences, favorite cuisine) and
restaurant characteristics (e.g. menu, price list, opening hours).
Another example is the problem of determining the minimum number of days that
one needs to visit all selected POIs without violating the constraint of the available time
per day. This problem may be formulated using the distance constrained vehicle problem
(DVRP) described in Section 4. Other interesting variants of TTDP may be formulated
using the mixed orienteering problem, also discussed in Section 4.
5.4 Fast tourist routes updates
Existing TTDP solutions deal with tourist queries for multiple days route planning, con-
sidering routes with the same starting/ending location. However, there is no provision
for user deviations from the originally planned routes, although such deviations are highly
probable to occur.
Dynamic rescheduling functionality should detect route invalidation (infeasibility) and
present a new route schedule in real time. This should exclude POIs already visited and
recommend a tour for the remainder of the current day (starting from the users current
position) as well as the next days of stay at the destination.
5.5 Parallel computation
One of the most important objectives in the design of algorithmic methods for the TTDP
is the real time response to user queries. Parallel computing is a promising approach
for attaining this important objective. Considering all the solution methods for TTDP,
heuristics and metaheuristics are most amenable to parallel computation since the huge
solution space arising in this kind of problems enables a lot of variation in parallelizing
solution searching. Specically, according to [42] one could parallelize the local search for
good neighboring solutions or partition the solution space in number of subspaces and
run a heuristic in each of these subspaces, in parallel. Alternatively, a number of search
threads could be created working on the same solution space, starting from dierent or the
same initial solution and applying same or dierent heuristics. These threads could work
28
independently or could cooperate periodically exchanging information about their progress
and the good solutions they have found so far. An interesting aspect of these approaches
is that they may as well provide new heuristic solutions with improved solution quality
since they can search the solution space and combine solutions in such a way that it is
very costly to simulate with a sequential implementation. Although, parallel heuristics has
been proposed in the literature for the VRP and TSP [35], [39], [41], [86], [101] parallel
solutions for TTDP are missing and the design of new parallel heuristics for TTDP may
solve the problem of the fast derivation of the tourist itineraries.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the EU FP7/2007-2013 (DG CONNECT.H5-Smart Cities and
Sustainability), under grant agreement no. 288094 (project eCOMPASS).
29
References
[1] City trip planner, http://www.citytripplanner.com/, Last accessed: March 2012.
[2] mtrip travel guides, http://www.mtrip.com/, Last accessed: March 2012.
[3] R. A. Abbaspour and F. Samadzadegan. Time-dependent personal tour planning and
scheduling in metropolises. Expert Syst. Appl., 38:1243912452, September 2011.
[4] D. Aksen and N. Aras. Customer selection and prot maximization in vehicle routing
problems. In Operations Research Proceedings 2005, Operations Research Proceed-
ings. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
[5] J. Araoz, E. Fernandez, and O. Meza. Solving the prize-collecting rural postman
problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 196(3):886 896, 2009.
[6] J. Araoz, E. Fernandez, and C. Zoltan. Privatized rural postman problems. Com-
puters & Operations Research, 33(12):34323449, 2006.
[7] C. Archetti, D. Feillet, A. Hertz, and M. G. Speranza. Optimal solutions for routing
problems with prots.
[8] C. Archetti, D. Feillet, A. Hertz, and M. G. Speranza. The capacitated team orien-
teering and protable tour problems. J. Oper. Res. Soc., 60:831842, 2009.
[9] C. Archetti, D. Feillet, A. Hertz, and M. G. Speranza. The undirected capacitated
arc routing problem with prots. Computers & Operations Research, 37(11):1860
1869, 2010.
[10] C. Archetti, A. Hertz, and M. Speranza. Metaheuristics for the team orienteering
problem. Journal of Heuristics, 13:4976, 2007.
[11] E. M. Arkin, R. Hassin, and A. Levin. Approximations for minimum and min-max
vehicle routing problems. Journal of Algorithms, 59(1):1 18, 2006.
[12] E. M. Arkin, J. S. B. Mitchell, and G. Narasimhan. Resource-constrained geometric
network optimization. In Proceedings of the fourteenth annual symposium on Com-
putational geometry, SCG 98, pages 307316, New York, NY, USA, 1998. ACM.
[13] S. Arora. Polynomial time approximation schemes for euclidean traveling salesman
and other geometric problems. J. ACM, 45(5):753782, sep 1998.
[14] S. Arora and G. Karakostas. A 2+ approximation algorithm for the k-mst problem.
Mathematical Programming, 107:491504.
30
[15] A. Asadpour, M.X. Goemans, A. Madry, S.O. Gharan, and A. Saberi. An
o(log n/ log log n)-approximation algorithm for the asymmetric traveling salesman
problem. In ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, volume 2010, pages
379389. 2010.
[16] B. Awerbuch, Y. Azar, A. Blum, and S. Vempala. New approximation guarantees for
minimum-weight k-trees and prize-collecting salesmen. SIAM J. Comput., 28(1):254
262, 1998.
[17] E. Balas. The prize collecting traveling salesman problem. Networks, 19(6):621636,
1989.
[18] N. Bansal, A. Blum, S. Chawla, and A. Meyerson. Approximation algorithms for
deadline-tsp and vehicle routing with time-windows. In Proceedings of the thirty-
sixth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, STOC 04, pages 166174,
New York, NY, USA, 2004. ACM.
[19] J.-F. Berube, M. Gendreau, and J.-Y. Potvin. An exact epsilon-constraint method
for bi-objective combinatorial optimization problems: Application to the traveling
salesman problem with prots. European Journal of Operational Research, 194(1):39
50, 2009.
[20] D. Bienstock, M. X. Goemans, D. Simchi-Levi, and D. Williamson. A note on the
prize collecting traveling salesman problem. Mathematical Programming, 59:413420.
[21] A. Blum, S. Chawla, D. R. Karger, T. Lane, A. Meyerson, and M. Minko. Approx-
imation algorithms for orienteering and discounted-reward tsp. In Foundations of
Computer Science, 2003. Proceedings. 44th Annual IEEE Symposium on, pages 46
55, oct. 2003.
[22] A. Blum, S. Chawla, D. R. Karger, Lane T., A. Meyerson, and M. Minko. Approx-
imation algorithms for orienteering and discounted-reward tsp. SIAM J. Comput.,
37(2):653670, 2007.
[23] H. Bouly, D.-C. Dang, and A. Moukrim. A memetic algorithm for the team orien-
teering problem. 4OR: A Quarterly Journal of Operations Research, 8:4970.
[24] S. Boussier, D. Feillet, and M. Gendreau. An exact algorithm for team orienteering
problems. 4OR: A Quarterly Journal of Operations Research, 5:211230.
[25] S. E. Butt and T. M. Cavalier. A heuristic for the multiple tour maximum collection
problem. Computers & Operations Research, 21(1):101 111, 1994.
[26] S. E. Butt and D. M. Ryan. An optimal solution procedure for the multiple tour
maximum collection problem using column generation. Computers and Operations
Research, 26(4):427 441, 1999.
31
[27] A. Campbell, M. Gendreau, and B. Thomas. The orienteering problem with stochas-
tic travel and service times. Annals of Operations Research, 186:6181.
[28] I-M. Chao, B. L. Golden, and E. A. Wasil. A fast and eective heuristic for the
orienteering problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 88(3):475 489,
1996.
[29] I-M. Chao, B. L. Golden, and E. A. Wasil. The team orienteering problem. European
Journal of Operational Research, 88(3):464 474, 1996.
[30] K. Chaudhuri, B. Godfrey, S. Rao, and K. Talwar. Paths, trees, and minimum latency
tours. In Foundations of Computer Science, 2003. Proceedings. 44th Annual IEEE
Symposium on, pages 36 45, oct. 2003.
[31] C. Chekuri, N. Korula, and M. Pal. Improved algorithms for orienteering and related
problems. In Proceedings of the nineteenth annual ACM-SIAM symposium on Dis-
crete algorithms, SODA 08, pages 661670, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2008. Society
for Industrial and Applied Mathematics.
[32] C. Chekuri and A. Kumar. Maximum coverage problem with group budget con-
straints and applications. In PROC. OF APPROX, SPRINGER LNCS, 72

201383,
pages 7283, 2004.
[33] C. Chekuri and M. Pal. A recursive greedy algorithm for walks in directed graphs. In
Foundations of Computer Science, 2005. FOCS 2005. 46th Annual IEEE Symposium
on, pages 245 253, oct. 2005.
[34] K. Chen and S. Har-Peled. The orienteering problem in the plane revisited. In Pro-
ceedings of the twenty-second annual symposium on Computational geometry, SCG
06, pages 247254, New York, NY, USA, 2006. ACM.
[35] L. Chen, H.-Y. Sun, and S. Wang. A parallel ant colony algorithm on massively
parallel processors and its convergence analysis for the travelling salesman problem.
Information Sciences, 2012. in press.
[36] K. Cheverst, K. Mitchell, and N. Davies. The role of adaptive hypermedia in a
context-aware tourist guide. Commun. ACM, 45(5):4751, May 2002.
[37] M. De Choudhury, M. Feldman, S. Amer-Yahia, N. Golbandi, R. Lempel, and C. Yu.
Automatic construction of travel itineraries using social breadcrumbs. In Proceedings
of the 21st ACM conference on Hypertext and hypermedia, HT 10, pages 3544, New
York, NY, USA, 2010. ACM.
[38] N. Christodes, A. Mingozzi, and P. Toth. State-space relaxation procedures for the
computation of bounds to routing problems. Networks, 11(2):145164, 1981.
32
[39] J.-F. Cordeau and M. Maischberger. A parallel iterated tabu search heuristic for
vehicle routing problems. Computers & Operations Research, 39:20332050, 2012.
[40] J.F. Cordeau, M. Gendreau, and G. Laporte. A tabu search heuristic for periodic
and multi-depot vehicle routing. Networks, 30:105119, 1997.
[41] T. G. Crainic. Parallel solution methods for vehicle routing problems. In B. Golden,
editor, The Vehicle Routing Problem. Springer Science+Business Media.
[42] T. G. Crainic and M. Toulouse. Parallel meta-heuristics. In M. Gendreau and J.-
Y. Potvin, editors, Handbook of Metaheuristics, International Series in Operations
Research & Management Science. Springer Science+Business Media.
[43] M. DellAmico, F. Maoli, and P. Varbrand. On prize-collecting tours and the
asymmetric travelling salesman problem. International Transactions in Operational
Research, 2(3):297308, 1995.
[44] K. Doerner, W. Gutjahr, R. Hartl, C. Strauss, and C. Stummer. Pareto ant colony
optimization: A metaheuristic approach to multiobjective portfolio selection. Annals
of Operations Research, 131:7999.
[45] D. Feillet, P. Dejax, and M. Gendreau. The protable arc tour problem: Solution
with a branch-and-price algorithm. Transportation Science, 39(4):539552, 2005.
[46] D. Feillet, P. Dejax, and M. Gendreau. Traveling salesman problems with prots.
Transportation Science, 39(2):188205, 2005.
[47] T. A. Feo and M. G. C. Resende. A probabilistic heuristic for a computationally
dicult set covering problem. 8:6771, 1989.
[48] M. Fischetti, J. J. S. Gonzalez, and P. Toth. Solving the orienteering problem through
branch-and-cut. INFORMS Journal on Computing, 10(2):133148, 1998.
[49] F. V. Fomin and A. Lingas. Approximation algorithms for time-dependent orienteer-
ing. Information Processing Letters, 83(2):57 62, 2002.
[50] G. Frederickson and B. Wittman. Approximation algorithms for the traveling repair-
man and speeding deliveryman problems. Algorithmica, 62:11981221.
[51] A. Garcia, M. Linaza, O. Arbelaitz, and P. Vansteenwegen. Intelligent routing system
for a personalised electronic tourist guide. In Wolfram Hpken, Ulrike Gretzel, and
Rob Law, editors, Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2009,
pages 185197. Springer Vienna.
33
[52] A. Garcia, P. Vansteenwegen, O. Arbelaitz, W. Souriau, and M. Linaza. Integrat-
ing public transportation in personalised electronic tourist guides. Computers &
Operations Research, (0):, 2011.
[53] D. Gavalas, M. Kenteris, C. Konstantopoulos, and Pantziou. A web application for
recommending personalized mobile tourist routes. IET Software, 6:313322, 2012.
[54] M. Gendreau, G. Laporte, and F. Semet. A branch-and-cut algorithm for the undi-
rected selective traveling salesman problem. Networks, 32(4):263273, 1998.
[55] M. Gendreau, G. Laporte, and F. Semet. A tabu search heuristic for the undirected
selective travelling salesman problem. European Journal of Operational Research,
106(2-3):539 545, 1998.
[56] M. X. Goemans and D. P. Williamson. A general approximation technique for con-
strained forest problems. SIAM J. Comput., 24(2):296317, 1995.
[57] B. Golden, Q. Wang, and L. Liu. A multifaceted heuristic for the orienteering prob-
lem. Naval Research Logistics, 35.
[58] B. L. Golden, L. Levy, and R. Vohra. The orienteering problem. Naval Research
Logistics (NRL), 34(3):307318, 1987.
[59] A. Gupta, R. Krishnaswamy, V. Nagarajan, and R. Ravi. Approximation algorithms
for stochastic orienteering. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual ACM-SIAM
Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA 12, pages 15221538. SIAM, 2012.
[60] P. Hansen and N. Mladenovic. An introduction to variable neighborhood search. In
Metaheuristics, Advances and Trends in Local Search Paradigms for Optimization.
[61] T. Ilhan, S. M. R. Iravani, and M. S. Daskin. The orienteering problem with stochastic
prots. IIE Transactions, 40(4):406421, 2008.
[62] N. Jozefowiez, F. Glover, and M. Laguna. Multi-objective meta-heuristics for the
traveling salesman problem with prots. Journal of Mathematical Modelling and
Algorithms, 7:177195.
[63] M. G. Kantor and M. B. Rosenwein. The orienteering problem with time windows.
The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 43(6):pp. 629635, 1992.
[64] S. Kataoka and S. Morito. An algorithm for single constraint maximum collection
problem. Journal of the Operations Research Society of Japan, 31(4):515530, 1988.
[65] L. Ke, C. Archetti, and Z. Feng. Ants can solve the team orienteering problem.
Comput. Ind. Eng., 54(3):648665, April 2008.
34
[66] C. P. Keller and M. F. Goodchild. The multiobjective vending problem: a general-
ization of the travelling salesman problem. Environment and Planning B: Planning
and Design, 15:447460, 1988.
[67] M. Kenteris, D. Gavalas, and D. Economou. Electronic mobile guides: a survey.
Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 15:97111.
[68] M. Kenteris, D. Gavalas, and D. Economou. An innovative mobile electronic tourist
guide application. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 13:103118.
[69] N. J. Korula. Approximation algorithms for network design and orienteering. PhD
thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2010.
[70] N. Labadi, R. Mansini, J. Melechovsk y, and R. Woler Calvo. The team orienteering
problem with time windows: An lp-based granular variable neighborhood search.
European Journal of Operational Research, 220(1):15 27, 2012.
[71] N. Labadi, J. Melechovsk y, and R. Calvo. An eective hybrid evolutionary local
search for orienteering and team orienteering problems with time windows. In Robert
Schaefer, Carlos Cotta, Joanna Kolodziej, and Gnter Rudolph, editors, Parallel Prob-
lem Solving from Nature PPSN XI, volume 6239 of Lecture Notes in Computer
Science, pages 219228. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg.
[72] N. Labadi, J. Melechovsk y, and R. Woler Calvo. Hybridized evolutionary local
search algorithm for the team orienteering problem with time windows. Journal of
Heuristics, 17:729753.
[73] G. Laporte, M. Desrochers, and Y. Nobert. Two exact algorithms for the distance-
constrained vehicle routing problem. Networks, 14(1):161172, 1984.
[74] G. Laporte and S. Martello. The selective travelling salesman problem. Discrete
Applied Mathematics, 26(2-3):193 207, 1990.
[75] C.-L. Li, D. Simchi-Levi, and M. Desrochers. On the distance constrained vehicle
routing problem. Operations Research, 40(4):pp. 790799, 1992.
[76] J. Li. Model and algorithm for time-dependent team orienteering problem. In Song
Lin and Xiong Huang, editors, Advanced Research on Computer Education, Simu-
lation and Modeling, volume 175 of Communications in Computer and Information
Science, pages 17. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2011.
[77] J. Li, Q. Wu, X. Li, and D. Zhu. Study on the time-dependent orienteering problem.
In E-Product E-Service and E-Entertainment (ICEEE), 2010 International Confer-
ence on, pages 14, nov. 2010.
35
[78] Z. Li and X. Hu. The team orienteering problem with capacity constraint and time
window. The Tenth International Symposium on Operations Research and Its Appli-
cations (ISORA 2011), pages 157163, August 2011.
[79] S.-W. Lin and V. F. Yu. A simulated annealing heuristic for the team orienteering
problem with time windows. European Journal of Operational Research, 217(1):94
107, 2012.
[80] R. Malaka and A. Zipf. Deep map - challenging it research in the framework of
a tourist information system. In Proceedings of the International Conference on
Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism (ENTER 2000), pages
1527, 2000.
[81] J. S. B. Mitchell. Guillotine subdivisions approximate polygonal subdivisions: A
simple polynomial-time approximation scheme for geometric tsp, k-mst, and related
problems. SIAM J. Comput., 28(4):12981309, 1999.
[82] R. Montemanni and L. M. Gambardella. An ant colony system for team orienteering
problems with time windows. Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences,
34(4):287306, 2009.
[83] S. Muthuswamy and S. Lam. Discrete particle swarm optimization for the team
orienteering problem. Memetic Computing, 3:287303.
[84] V. Nagarajan and R. Ravi. The directed orienteering problem. Algorithmica, 60:1017
1030, August 2011.
[85] V. Nagarajan and R. Ravi. Approximation algorithms for distance constrained vehicle
routing problems. Networks, 59(2):209214, 2012.
[86] K.-W. Pang. An adaptive parallel route construction heuristic for the vehicle routing
problem with time windows constraints,. Expert Systems with Applications, 38:11939
11946, 2011.
[87] R. Ramesh and K. M. Brown. An ecient four-phase heuristic for the generalized
orienteering problem. Computers & Operations Research, 18(2):151 165, 1991.
[88] R. Ramesh, Y.-S. Yoon, and M. H. Karwan. An optimal algorithm for the orienteering
tour problem. ORSA Journal on Computing, 4(2):155165, Spring 1992.
[89] G. Reinelt. Tsplib - a traveling salesman problem library. ORSA Journal on Com-
puting, 3(4):376384, 1991.
[90] G. Righini and M. Salani. New dynamic programming algorithms for the resource
constrained elementary shortest path problem. Networks, 51(3):155170, 2008.
36
[91] G. Righini and M. Salani. Decremental state space relaxation strategies and ini-
tialization heuristics for solving the orienteering problem with time windows with
dynamic programming. Computers & Operations Research, 36(4):1191 1203, 2009.
[92] W. J. Savitch. Relationships between nondeterministic and deterministic tape com-
plexities. J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 4(2):177192, 1970.
[93] M. Schilde, K. Doerner, R. Hartl, and G. Kiechle. Metaheuristics for the bi-objective
orienteering problem. Swarm Intelligence, 3:179201.
[94] J. Silberholz and B. Golden. The eective application of a new approach to the
generalized orienteering problem. Journal of Heuristics, 16:393415.
[95] F. Solomon. Algorithms for the vehicle routing and scheduling problem with time
windows constraints. Operations Research, 35:254265, 1987.
[96] W. Souriau and P. Vansteenwegen. Tourist trip planning functionalities: State-
oftheart and future. In F. Daniel and F. Facca, editors, Current Trends in Web
Engineering, volume 6385 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 474485.
Springer Berlin / Heidelberg.
[97] W. Souriau, P. Vansteenwegen, G. Vanden Berghe, and D. Van Oudheusden. A
greedy randomised adaptive search procedure for the team orienteering problem. In
EU/MEeting 2008 on metaheuristics for logistics and vehicle routing, October 2008.
[98] W. Souriau, P. Vansteenwegen, G. Vanden Berghe, and D. Van Oudheusden. The
multiconstraint team orienteering problem with multiple time windows. Transporta-
tion Science, 2011. in press.
[99] W. Souriau, P. Vansteenwegen, G. Vanden Berghe, and G. Van Oudheusden. A path
relinking approach for the team orienteering problem. Computers and Operations
Research, 37:18531859, 2010.
[100] F. C. R. Spieksma. On the approximability of an interval scheduling problem. Journal
of Scheduling, 2:215227, 1999.
[101] A. Subramanian, L. M. A. Drummonda, C. Bentes, L. S. Ochi, and R. Farias. A par-
allel heuristic for the vehicle routing problem with simultaneous pickup and delivery.
Computers & Operations Research, 37:18991911, 2010.
[102] H. Tang and E. Miller-Hooks. A tabu search heuristic for the team orienteering
problem. Computers & Operations Research, 32(6):1379 1407, 2005.
[103] L. Tang and X. Wang. Iterated local search algorithm based on very large-scale
neighborhood for prize-collecting vehicle routing problem. The International Journal
of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 29:12461258.
37
[104] F. Tricoire, M. Romauch, K. F. Doerner, and R. F. Hartl. Heuristics for the multi-
period orienteering problem with multiple time windows. Computers & Operations
Research, 37(2):351 367, 2010.
[105] T. Tsiligirides. Heuristic methods applied to orienteering. The Journal of the Oper-
ational Research Society, 35(9):pp. 797809, 1984.
[106] J. N. Tsitsiklis. Special cases of traveling salesman and repairman problems with
time windows. Networks, 22:263282, 1992.
[107] P. Vansteenwegen. Planning in Tourism and Public Transportation - Attraction
Selection by Means of a Personalised Electronic Tourist Guide and Train Transfer
Scheduling. PhD thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 2008.
[108] P. Vansteenwegen, W. Souriau, and K. Sorensen. The travelling salesperson problem
with hotel selection. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 63:207217, 2012.
[109] P. Vansteenwegen, W. Souriau, and D. Van Oudheusden. The orienteering problem:
A survey. European Journal of Operational Research, 209(1):1 10, 2011.
[110] P. Vansteenwegen, W. Souriau, G. Vanden Berghe, and D. Van Oudheusden. A
guided local search metaheuristic for the team orienteering problem. European Jour-
nal of Operational Research, 196(1):118 127, 2009.
[111] P. Vansteenwegen, W. Souriau, G. Vanden Berghe, and D. Van Oudheusden. It-
erated local search for the team orienteering problem with time windows. Comput.
Oper. Res., 36:32813290, December 2009.
[112] P. Vansteenwegen, W. Souriau, G. Vanden Berghe, and D. Van Oudheusden. Meta-
heuristics for tourist trip planning. In M. Geiger, W. Habenicht, M. Sevaux, and
K. Sorensen, editors, Metaheuristics in the Service Industry, volume 624 of Lecture
Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, pages 1531. Springer-Verlag, 2009.
[113] P. Vansteenwegen, W. Souriau, G. Vanden Berghe, and D. Van Oudheusden. The
city trip planner: An expert system for tourists. Expert Systems with Applications,
38(6):6540 6546, 2011.
[114] P. Vansteenwegen and D. Van Oudheusden. The mobile tourist guide: An or oppor-
tunity. Operational Research Insight, 20(3):2127, 2007.
[115] C. Voudouris and E. Tsang. Guided local search and its application to the traveling
salesman problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 113(2):469 499,
1999.
[116] Q. Wang, X. Sun, B. L. Golden, and J. Jia. Using articial neural networks to solve
the orienteering problem. Annals of Operations Research, 61:111120.
38
[117] X. Wang, B. L. Golden, and E. A. Wasil. Using a genetic algorithm to solve the
generalized orienteering problem. In The Vehicle Routing Problem: Latest Advances
and New Challenges, volume 43 of Operations Research/Computer Science Interfaces
Series, pages 263274. Springer US, 2008.
[118] R. Xu and D. Wunsch. Survey of clustering algorithms. Neural Networks, IEEE
Transactions on, 16(3):645 678, may 2005.
[119] B. Zenker and B. Ludwig. Rose: assisting pedestrians to nd preferred events and
comfortable public transport connections. In Proceedings of the 6th International
Conference on Mobile Technology, Application & Systems, Mobility 09, pages
16:116:5, New York, NY, USA, 2009. ACM.
39